Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,264,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Randomness thread, part two.

Page 341 of 344 FirstFirst ... 241291331339340341342343 ... LastLast
Results 25,501 to 25,575 of 25758
  1. #25501
    Can you read?

    Quote Originally Posted by someone reasonable View Post
    If you believe I was not explicit and emphatic in my support for a symbiotic system of physical barriers, manpower, and technology, then you have smoked yourself retarded
    Are any of those words confusing to you? Let me know because I really wanna help you sort this out.
  2. #25502
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7,404
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Can you read?



    Are any of those words confusing to you? Let me know because I really wanna help you sort this out.
    lol

    Are the things we confirmed we agree about dozens of posts back confusing me?
    No.

    lol
  3. #25503
    At this point I think we've proven beyond any doubt that there is no logical, fact based, reasonable answer to the question "How does unrestricted immigration help America" other than "It doesn't".

    Going back to the original catalyst of this whole 3 page dispute....I think we've proven that it's possible for one side to claim a monopoly on facts, reason, and logic while simultaneously NOT denouncing the other side as stupid idiots. In other words, MadMojoPolly's whole reason for joining this conversation in the first place, was wrong.

    Moving on. Let's talk about another question where one side has facts, logic, and reason, and the other side is made up of liars, and the idiots they have deceived.

    What factual, logical, reasonable, compelling evidence exists that could make a person believe that Trump and Putin colluded, via a quid pro quo agreement, to frustrate and undermine the DNC and Hillary Clinton?
  4. #25504
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7,404
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    A lack of evidence is not proof of anything.

    ***
    Why does unrestricted immigration work for state borders?
  5. #25505
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    A lack of evidence is not proof of anything.
    So you would support millions of taxpayer dollars being spent on an investigation into the existence or non-existence of fire-breathing dragons or unicorns?

    If not, then how is the Russia investigation any different??
  6. #25506
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Why does unrestricted immigration work for state borders?
    Who said it does?
  7. #25507
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7,404
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    So you would support millions of taxpayer dollars being spent on an investigation into the existence or non-existence of fire-breathing dragons or unicorns?

    If not, then how is the Russia investigation any different??
    I would vote against (not support) investigations into the existence of things which have not been observed, despite many decades of searching.
    That said, I support a government that is beholden to its citizens. If American citizens want their tax dollars spent a certain way, then I want the American gov't to spend the tax dollars in that way.

    There's a fine line between unicorns and worm holes (or SETI, if you like), though.
    I do think it's a good thing that some people disagree with me and are investing their money into these searches. If I'm wrong, that should not be the end of the progress.


    The difference is in my opinion vs. the greater opinion of the divided American public.
    The difference is that my opinions dictate my behavior, not the nation's
  8. #25508
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7,404
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Who said it does?
    Does it?
  9. #25509
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    That said, I support a government that is beholden to its citizens. If American citizens want their tax dollars spent a certain way, then I want the American gov't to spend the tax dollars in that way.
    This is folly. You're saying that the government should do whatever the people want. Except you've left out the part where the thing that people want can be manipulated by the government.
  10. #25510
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Does it?
    I live in NH. There's no sales tax. People come from other states to buy shit all the time. That's a net loss for for those other states and a gain for NH. For America as a whole, it's a push.

    When the exchange happens across international borders, then one country gains, and one loses. It's not a push.

    So if someone from Mexico comes into America for a job, then the Mexican worker benefits, and the American worker loses.

    If that worker doesn't pay taxes, then the Mexican worker benefits, and the American government loses.

    If that worker has children whose education and healthcare is paid for by America, then that's a loss for America.

    If a cartel drug dealer takes his poison out of Mexico, that's a win for Mexico and a loss for whatever country the poison goes to.

    See the problem??

    It's plain to see that it affects the federal government negatively when these exchanges occur over national borders. And it doesn't particularly affect the federal government at all when these exchanges occur between states.

    Now, if you wanted to say that the STATE government of Vermont should build a wall between itself and New Hampshire in order to keep people buying things and paying taxes within the Green Mountain State, then you might have a point. A state can justifiably defend it's borders against outsiders for all the same reasons a nation would. Except that...
    A) The cost of securing the VT border may be more than what's lost in sales tax
    B) Doing so violates the US Constitution. Apparently the founding fathers thought it was important that we be a *United* States of America
  11. #25511
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,368
    Location
    North Carolina
    Don't waste your time. They cannot be cured.
  12. #25512
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    mojo, oskar, cocco...
    I wouldn't classify them leftists.

    Leftism is not liberalism. Those two are antithetical.

    The true political spectrum that emerged a few hundred years ago is being more clearly revealed today than in recent times. That is that one side is both liberalism and conservatism, and the other side is authoritarianism, crony capitalism or socialism, and welfarism (all of which is encapsulated by Marxism). Liberalism and conservatism are two modes of Enlightenment thought, two modes of thought regarding liberty and individualism. Marxism has none of that. It rejects liberty and individualism.

    Today, most people who think they are leftists actually are still much more attuned to liberalism/conservatism than to Marxism. This is only recently beginning to be understood since there is a resurgence of Marxism, probably due to the worldwide failure of Marxism being long enough ago that most people don't remember it.
  13. #25513
    Dick Durbin (D-IL) went on the Senate floor today and said, paraphrased, "we need more immigrants to do low skilled jobs"

    Let's separate fact from rhetoric on this.

    There is no occupation, anywhere in the US Economy, that is not staffed in the majority by americans.

    There is no such thing as a job that an American will not do.
  14. #25514
    If Trump said "immigrants to do low-skilled jobs" you can guarantee the entire mainstream media would convince half the world he's a racist.
  15. #25515
    The fucking hilarious thing about how racist the Democrats are is that we DO need immigrants and it has NOTHING to do with any so-called low skill the Party of Racism wrongly claims immigrants have.

    Immigrants are complements to all fields of all different skill levels.

    I do commend the Democrats though. Bravo at their incredible skill at using bigotry to convince people they harm that they're instead saviors.
  16. #25516
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    If Trump said "immigrants to do low-skilled jobs" you can guarantee the entire mainstream media would convince half the world he's a racist.
    Are they really convincing people anymore? I wonder if there is an undecided person out there who would be swayed by something like that at this point.

    I heard some libtard yesterday say something like "Chief Executive of Rape Culture" over this Rob Porter thing. It's like they're just having a contest to use the strongest adjectives they can. I wonder if that's just a pissing contest they have with each other or if they're desperately begging people to join their side

    Funny that this "rape culture" accusation doesn't extend to ALL members of the Trump white house. I just saw Piers Morgan claim that Omarosa tried to have a "showmance" with him in order to enhance their prominence on the Celebrity Apprentice and make money during and after the show. When he refused, she harassed him pretty badly, or so he says.

    Where's Piers Morgans #metoo moment???

    Something about Omarosa makes the mainstream media reluctant to attack her.

    Wonder what that's about?
  17. #25517
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I do commend the Democrats though. Bravo at their incredible skill at using bigotry to convince people they harm that they're instead saviors.
    You're saying this like people are just stupid and easily convinced.

    But it's bigger than that

    They're TAUGHT this

    What I want to know, is how liberalism infected academia so much.

    EDIT: Literally right now I'm watching a story about an Anthropology professor fired for using the N word during a lecture. The subject of the lecture was the N word
    Last edited by BananaStand; 02-13-2018 at 08:53 PM.
  18. #25518
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Are they really convincing people anymore? I wonder if there is an undecided person out there who would be swayed by something like that at this point.
    It's a slow burn. Opinions conform to zeitgeists.

    Which is why I'm somewhat sanguine about the possibility of key criminals of the Obama administration being prosecuted for their crimes. The media can't counter evidence that reveal the crimes, so they just opt to just talk about something else entirely. This allows for a very sizable number of people who would otherwise be influenced by the media's counter-narrative to not be.
  19. #25519
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You're saying this like people are just stupid and easily convinced.

    But it's bigger than that

    They're TAUGHT this

    What I want to know, is how liberalism infected academia so much.
    I think it's best to not call it liberalism.

    The left has been stealing that word and conservatives have done a disservice by doubling down and vilifying that word. The fact is that American values emerge from liberalism. Leftism, Marxism, socialism, communism, fascism, all have nothing to do with liberalism.
  20. #25520
    Progressivism

    Might not be perfect, but let's just settle on something. You know what I mean. The shit MSNBC barfs out 24 hours a day.

    BTW: nice de-rail. MadMojoPolly would be proud
  21. #25521
    The cause of mass identity with Marxism might be due to the creep caused by tragedy of the commons. Here's an example for what I'm getting at: once you develop a "public good", it never stops growing because the frame is that the only way to make the good better is more taxes since it's "public". A great example is something that hardworking homeowners deal with a ton in this area. Every single time there's a vote to raise the property tax to fund public schools, it passes. This is because the good/service that is schooling is essentially monopolized by the state, and because people rightly think of education as a good thing, there is no option but to raise taxes to try to improve schools. Then we're hit by the double whammy in that the schools only get worse since they are regulation created monopolies. So they end up needing even more money and people have little choice but to vote in favor of it.

    There is no evidence of a real ending point for this. It will probably just continue and continue until eventually Karl Marx sneaks in from the back door hammers the final nail in the coffin of liberal values.
  22. #25522
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,368
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You're saying this like people are just stupid and easily convinced.

    But it's bigger than that

    They're TAUGHT this

    What I want to know, is how liberalism infected academia so much.

    EDIT: Literally right now I'm watching a story about an Anthropology professor fired for using the N word during a lecture. The subject of the lecture was the N word


    This is a little lengthy, but Sommers goes into answering the bold in a lot of detail in this video.
  23. #25523
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,368
    Location
    North Carolina


    Seems related to recent conversation.
  24. #25524
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Which is why I'm somewhat sanguine about the possibility of key criminals of the Obama administration being prosecuted for their crimes. The media can't counter evidence that reveal the crimes, so they just opt to just talk about something else entirely. This allows for a very sizable number of people who would otherwise be influenced by the media's counter-narrative to not be.
    never gonna happen

    They can just make it so the only one demanding justice for these crimes is Fox News. They don't need counter evidence. They'll just make it seem like the only people upset are crazy vindictive right wing nutjobs.

    The IRS, Fast & Furious, Benghazi, Clinton's Emails.....and NOTHING. What makes you think this Russia stuff will go down any different?

    whats the disincentive if Obama or his officials are not prosecuted. Who has skin in this game?
  25. #25525
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,368
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    never gonna happen

    They can just make it so the only one demanding justice for these crimes is Fox News. They don't need counter evidence. They'll just make it seem like the only people upset are crazy vindictive right wing nutjobs.

    The IRS, Fast & Furious, Benghazi, Clinton's Emails.....and NOTHING. What makes you think this Russia stuff will go down any different?

    whats the disincentive if Obama or his officials are not prosecuted. Who has skin in this game?
    I pretty much agree here.
  26. #25526
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    They can just make it so the only one demanding justice for these crimes is Fox News. They don't need counter evidence. They'll just make it seem like the only people upset are crazy vindictive right wing nutjobs.
    If that's their best tool, they will lose. By a lot. So I hope that's their best tool.

    The IRS, Fast & Furious, Benghazi, Clinton's Emails.....and NOTHING. What makes you think this Russia stuff will go down any different?
    Trump.

    All those things you mentioned, nothing happened because they were crimes committed by the administration in charge at the time.

    I don't know if the Trump administration has been operating by a plan to prosecute the Obama criminals, but there are a LOT of signs that suggest the Trump admin might be.

    whats the disincentive if Obama or his officials are not prosecuted. Who has skin in this game?
    Indeed. Holding the Obama criminals accountable might be the most productive thing that could come from a Trump presidency.

    And I bet he knows it. Gotta keep in mind that he loves this country and it sickens him to see what the crooks and liars at the top of government have done to it. It might be right on the money to claim that he very much wants to see them in jail.
  27. #25527
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post


    This is a little lengthy, but Sommers goes into answering the bold in a lot of detail in this video.
    Timestamp?
  28. #25528
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,368
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Timestamp?
    No clue. It's talked about a lot in that interview though.
  29. #25529
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,368
    Location
    North Carolina
  30. #25530
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,032
    Location
    England
    I tried finding a meme "How UK avoids school shootings" but couldn't find one.

    Have a picture of a lollipop lady instead...

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  31. #25531
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I tried finding a meme "How UK avoids school shootings" but couldn't find one.

    Have a picture of a lollipop lady instead...

    Lollipop lady better get her act together. She's just smiling and waving while some maniac is driving on the wrong side of the road!!!!

    Cmon! Head on a swivel lady!!
  32. #25532
    TL/DR version: Bananastand disagrees with Trump. He disagrees HYOOOOOOOOOOJ

    First, let me just say that the idea of 'gun control' as a solution to mass shootings is mostly ineffective. There are very very few instances where mass-shooters came to possess their weapons illegally. Usually, the gun is purchased by legal means, which would not have been prevented by any non-oppressive gun control measures being proposed now.

    The slight exception, would be an outright ban on automatic weapons. These guns aren't for protecting life and property. They are assault weapons. Assault is the opposite of defense. An AR-15 exists solely for the efficient killing of human beings. So you'll never convince me that gun has any place in the civilian domain.

    However, I said it's a "slight" exception because this measure will not solve the problem of deranged people trying to kill en masse. It just makes it harder for them to do it. If this kid in Florida had only a pistol, or a shotgun, then there would probably be less people dead.

    But then again, a law banning assault weapons isn't necessarily the most effective life saving measure we have at our disposal. Passing a law like that costs nothing. But enforcing a law like that costs money. More screening, more searches, more seizures, more arrests, more prosecutions, more imprisonments......more money. How do we know we're spending that money wisely?

    Assuming we stop all mass shootings nationwide, we save maybe 100 lives per year. But what if we used the money, instead, to fund suicide prevention. Suicide is responsible for 22,000 gun deaths per year. A 1% reduction in that number means we save twice as many people as we would if we could stop all mass shootings (which we can't).

    Or, what about women shot in domestic disputes? What about street violence? Gangs? Could we prevent more than 100 gun deaths per year by throwing money at those problems? Probably.

    So there is a decision to be made. Making that decision when you are reeling emotionally from a tragedy would be hopelessly irresponsible. That's why you hear a lot of people saying "this isn't the time to debate gun laws. Don't politicize a tragedy" Those people are right.

    However, practically, once the emotional reeling is over with, no one wants to spend any money on anything. The gun lobby is not that powerful. It just isn't. That's a myth narrative pushed by the left to demonize republicans. It's a fraudulent and transparent attempt to politicize tragedy and engage in class warfare. Besides, Dems had a royal flush in 2008 and didn't think gun laws were a problem worth tackling.

    Hannity has been screaming for two days straight about having retired military personnel, armed, and patrolling schools on a constant basis. He's advocating that the solution to this problem is to secure schools. That's insane. Just the cost is astronomical. It's also hard to believe that this security would be particularly effective. Schools are too big, and have too many people in them.

    Hannity also seems to forget that a large percentage of mass shootings don't happen in schools.

    But in the end, I will support an assault weapons ban, I will support increasing school security, I will support almost any insane gun control measure that that big-government elitists want to put forward because any of that is preferable to Trump's approach of addressing this through mental health.

    I would rather see the military march from house to house confiscating hundreds of millions of firearms from law abiding citizens before I ask the mental health community to address this crisis. Hell, I would rather let North Korea develop nuclear weapons completely unchecked before I let the American Psychological Association drive policy in this country.

    Did you know that DSM-V covers 70% of people? Read that again. More than two thirds of people in this world could be diagnosed with a psychological disorder according to the governing guidebook of American Psychologists. If 70% of people are afflicted.....then what's normal???

    I have no problem with 50 kids a year getting shot to bits if the alternative is that 50 million kids walk around stoned 24 hours a day.

    Every single one of the thousands and thousands of schools in this country have "weird kids". Kids that don't fit in. Kids that "aren't right". Kids that have had rough upbringings. Kids that are angry, aggressive, and socially terrible. You need several decimal places to communicate what percentage of them will ever actually do something violent. Do we really want teachers and faculty singling out the oddballs, referring them for psychological screening, and then having those people denied their rights because of the assessment of a stranger??

    I literally can not imagine a worse kind of hell

    Finally, I'll close with this. My emphatic and vehement recommendation to you is to gather up all the available liquid assets you have and invest extremely heavily in clear backpacks.
  33. #25533
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,368
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    TL/DR version: Bananastand disagrees with Trump. He disagrees HYOOOOOOOOOOJ

    First, let me just say that the idea of 'gun control' as a solution to mass shootings is mostly ineffective. There are very very few instances where mass-shooters came to possess their weapons illegally. Usually, the gun is purchased by legal means, which would not have been prevented by any non-oppressive gun control measures being proposed now.

    The slight exception, would be an outright ban on automatic weapons. These guns aren't for protecting life and property. They are assault weapons. Assault is the opposite of defense. An AR-15 exists solely for the efficient killing of human beings. So you'll never convince me that gun has any place in the civilian domain.
    "Assault weapon" is a fake term that doesn't mean anything important in the conversation. Whether something is an "assault weapon" or not depends on its appearance. A black AR-15 can be considered an "assault weapon" while another AR-15 identical in every other way except color would not be considered an "assault weapon." As soon as someone starts using the term "assault weapon," it virtually always shows that they have little idea of what they're talking about.

    To your more specific points, an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is also not an automatic weapon. Moreover, assault rifles and automatic weapons are already illegal for civilians to have, and that's been the case since 1986.

    The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. It's why it keeps showing up in shootings. It's simply selection bias.

    I will support an assault weapons ban
    The assault weapons ban stopped because they didn't help anything for a decade. This ban started in 1994 and ended in 2004 for a reason: It was completely useless.

    "Assault weapons" are fake news, and assault rifles are already banned.

    One more thing: The most deadly attack on a school in US history used no guns whatsoever.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 02-16-2018 at 12:13 PM.
  34. #25534
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    "Assault weapon" is a fake term that doesn't mean anything important in the conversation. Whether something is an "assault weapon" or not depends on its appearance. A black AR-15 can be considered an "assault weapon" while another AR-15 identical in every other way except color would not be considered an "assault weapon." As soon as someone starts using the term "assault weapon," it virtually always shows that they have little idea of what they're talking about.

    To your more specific points, an AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is also not an automatic weapon. Moreover, assault rifles and automatic weapons are already illegal for civilians to have, and that's been the case since 1986.

    The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. It's why it keeps showing up in shootings. It's simply selection bias.
    I really don't know enough about guns and the associated vocabulary to dispute any of this. But even if you're entirely right, it's a semantic point. There are guns for personal protection. There are guns for home defense. There are guns for tactical applications like law enforcement. There are guns for shooting moose and bears.

    And then there are guns designed for offense. There are guns whose sole purpose is aggressively and efficiently killing multiple people. It's this category, defined by whatever terminology is appropriate, that has no practical civilian application.

    Therefore I have no problem outlawing them. This will save lives, but more importantly it will appease the democrats who stupidly believe that gun laws are the answer. The alternative is the Trump plan of calling on the mental health community to address the problem of mass shootings. Like I said, I can't imagine a worse kind of hell.

    It's hard to imagine that going anywhere other than a system where doctors can deny people's rights without due process.
  35. #25535
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/16...ns-missed.html


    Do we really wanna live in a world where anyone deemed "a little off" should be reported to law enforcement?

    Honestly, what do people think SHOULD have happened here?? Should the FBI have taken the guy's gun? Without due process?? Just because someone called in a tip? Should the FBI be able to force the guy into psychological treatment?? Without a lawyer??

    A lot of people, including lawmakers, are hung up on the emotion-based wishful thinking that makes them believe that this was preventable.

    It wasn't.
  36. #25536
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,368
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Do we really wanna live in a world where anyone deemed "a little off" should be reported to law enforcement?

    Honestly, what do people think SHOULD have happened here?? Should the FBI have taken the guy's gun? Without due process?? Just because someone called in a tip? Should the FBI be able to force the guy into psychological treatment?? Without a lawyer??

    A lot of people, including lawmakers, are hung up on the emotion-based wishful thinking that makes them believe that this was preventable.

    It wasn't.
    Meanwhile, his name is all over the media, giving him the fame he wanted and showing the next dipshit that he'll get his 2-3 days of infamy if he does the same kind of dumbass shit.
  37. #25537
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,368
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I really don't know enough about guns and the associated vocabulary to dispute any of this. But even if you're entirely right, it's a semantic point. There are guns for personal protection. There are guns for home defense. There are guns for tactical applications like law enforcement. There are guns for shooting moose and bears.

    And then there are guns designed for offense.
    There are guns whose sole purpose is aggressively and efficiently killing multiple people. It's this category, defined by whatever terminology is appropriate, that has no practical civilian application.

    Therefore I have no problem outlawing them. This will save lives, but more importantly it will appease the democrats who stupidly believe that gun laws are the answer. The alternative is the Trump plan of calling on the mental health community to address the problem of mass shootings. Like I said, I can't imagine a worse kind of hell.

    It's hard to imagine that going anywhere other than a system where doctors can deny people's rights without due process.
    None of the bold are functionally different from each other in terms of what's available for US civilians to legally own. What you're talking about here is one of the key things that people get caught on emotionally when they don't have an understanding of the subject matter because it's one of those things that seems right, and it's with the best of intentions, but that's not what's reflected in reality.

    And look, I get that "AR-15" sounds like something scary, but it's not. Unfortunately, that combined with outright lies and the emotions that run high for some people after the MSM gets done monetizing the deaths of innocent people and mass hysteria leads to otherwise intelligent people being fed enough misinformation and complete falsehoods that they end up saying goofy shit.

    Here's a good example: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...ble-ncna848346

    This guy makes so many factual mistakes that it's like looking at a piece of Swiss cheese. I'll go through a few:

    The AR-15, the civilian version of the military assault rifle (M16 or M4)
    This is simply untrue. The AR-15 was around before the M16 or the M4.

    It was made for the military, to allow members of the armed forces to better dispatch multiple enemies in short order...
    This is untrue and directly contradicts his prior assertion that it was "a civilian version of a military assault rifle."

    The AR-10 was created in very limited numbers for military testing based on the weight of the gun, but it lost out to the M14. The AR-10 is a rare gun with fewer than 10,000 of them ever having been created and was largely experimental. The AR-15 was based on some of the same principles that were developed with the AR-10 in terms of it weighing less. Regardless, the AR-15 was not made for the military.

    ... it’s unclear what other purpose it could serve, given how and why it was made.
    This is also clearly untrue for many of the reasons listed above, but there are plenty of other uses for an AR-15 than killing people.

    That's just in the first paragraph. The next few paragraphs are typical "let's say scary shit about how bullets fuck shit up when someone gets shot" designed to get emotional reactions from people who don't know any better.

    But the moderate energy of the AR-15 allows shooting on target literally as rapidly as the trigger can be pulled
    This is completely false. Elements of the AR-15 were designed to limit recoil, but you cannot shoot accurately by just rapidly pulling a trigger. The same can be said for virtually any semi-automatic rifle.

    The efficiency of the AR-15 is further compounded by large capacity ammunition magazines that permit feeding 30 or more bullets into the rifle without reloading.
    This is misleading. Magazine size provides an insignificant increase in shooting time with a rifle like this because of how fast reloading is.

    Mass shootings with high fatalities are fundamentally the result of the combination of a deranged individual who wants to end the lives of a large number of random humans and his or her ability to access an assault rifle.
    None of the mass shootings the author of this article cites used an assault rifle.

    And while there is no real debate about the need for improved mental health care in the United States, any discussion of limiting civilians’ access to assault rifles has been a political non-starter for far too long.
    Civilians have not had legal access to assault rifles since the 1980s. Again, he has no idea what he's talking about.

    There have already been 18 school shootings in 2018
    This is another intentionally misleading meme that the drones on the left have been mindlessly puking out over and over by stretching the meaning of "school shooting" to mean any time a gun went off on the campus of any kind of school or university for any reason whatsoever.

    That number includes a vet with PTSD who committed suicide in the parking lot of a school that had been closed for months. But hey, 18 school shootings this year sure does sound great if you want to scare people into clicks.

    Here's USA Today of all outlets elaborating on why that's an outright lie: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...umn/343100002/

    TLDR: The amount of misinformation is tremendous and has otherwise seemingly intelligent people saying shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Almost all of it is because they have been misinformed, and if they have the actual facts in front of them, I have no doubt that they'll see things differently.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 02-16-2018 at 02:21 PM.
  38. #25538
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    None of the bold are functionally different from each other in terms of what's available for US civilians to legally own. What you're talking about here is one of the key things that people get caught on emotionally when they don't have an understanding of the subject matter because it's one of those things that seems right, and it's with the best of intentions, but that's not what's reflected in reality.
    This sounds like you're saying "You're wrong, I'm right, because I know something that you don't know, and I'm not gonna tell you what it is". That pretty much sums up the entirety of the subsequent post.

    And look, I get that "AR-15" sounds like something scary, but it's not.
    Oh, really? They're "nice" guns?

    Unfortunately, that combined with outright lies and the emotions that run high for some people after the MSM gets done monetizing the deaths of innocent people and mass hysteria leads to otherwise intelligent people being fed enough misinformation and complete falsehoods that they end up saying goofy shit.
    It's not nearly as goofy as you're making it sound

    Here's a good example: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...ble-ncna848346

    This guy makes so many factual mistakes that it's like looking at a piece of Swiss cheese.
    None of the mistakes you cite, if they are indeed mistakes, undermine his argument.

    I'll go through a few:
    Ok, let's go.

    This is simply untrue. The AR-15 was around before the M16 or the M4.
    Nope. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.b4cf01af84b1

    It was first used during the Vietnam War as an alternative to the M-14 rifle,
    See

    This is untrue and directly contradicts his prior assertion that it was "a civilian version of a military assault rifle."

    The AR-10 was created in very limited numbers for military testing based on the weight of the gun, but it lost out to the M14. The AR-10 is a rare gun with fewer than 10,000 of them ever having been created and was largely experimental. The AR-15 was based on some of the same principles that were developed with the AR-10 in terms of it weighing less. Regardless, the AR-15 was not made for the military.
    This is really hair splitting stuff. His point here is that the gun's designed purpose is to inflict multiple, successive, casualties very quickly. Who cares who the historical intended market was?? It's a practically useless, and extraordinarily dangerous item that a 19 year old can acquire easier than beer.

    This is also clearly untrue for many of the reasons listed above, but there are plenty of other uses for an AR-15 than killing people.
    False. Name one use for an AR-15, other than killing people, that isn't already served better by a different class of gun.

    That's just in the first paragraph. The next few paragraphs are typical "let's say scary shit about how bullets fuck shit up when someone gets shot" designed to get emotional reactions from people who don't know any better.
    Are you really denying that the bullets used are not designed to inflict maximum damage to the insides of the target??

    Kennedy got shot twice. Once by Lee Harvey Oswald with a rifle shot that was effectively like a laser beam. It went through the back of Kennedy's neck and out the other side. Then it went through a car seat, through the shoulder of the Texas Governor, out through the front of his shoulder, then through his hand, then through the bottom of the car. Fucking laser beam. It's widely believed that had that been the only hit, that Kennedy would have lived.

    In the commotion, a secret service agent accidentally fired his weapon. Not sure it was an AR-15, I believe I read it was an AK-47, but nevertheless, the same type of ammunition was in play. That bullet hit Kennedy's skull and blew it into a jillion pieces.

    There is definitely, definitely an important difference.

    This is completely false. Elements of the AR-15 were designed to limit recoil, but you cannot shoot accurately by just rapidly pulling a trigger. The same can be said for virtually any semi-automatic rifle.
    The police responded to the Aurora movie theater within 3 minutes. In that time, the guy shot 90 people. That's too rapid for any practical civilian use.

    This is misleading. Magazine size provides an insignificant increase in shooting time with a rifle like this because of how fast reloading is.
    More bullets = more deaths. What's hard to understand about this?

    None of the mass shootings the author of this article cites used an assault rifle.
    Merely a semantic distinction that proves nothing.

    Civilians have not had legal access to assault rifles since the 1980s. Again, he has no idea what he's talking about.
    From the WaPo story linked above, apparently civilians do have access, it's just highly regulated.

    This is another intentionally misleading meme that the drones on the left have been mindlessly puking out over and over by stretching the meaning of "school shooting" to mean any time a gun went off on the campus of any kind of school or university for any reason whatsoever.
    Actually I heard this stat echoed by Fox News as well multiple times last night. I think the people that put it out are intentionally misleading people. Then it was re-tweeted by Bernie Sanders and some other people who just believed it without checking on it. I don't think that was a deliberate misinformation campaign. Just a bad source. Alot of the re-use of that stat was by people who believed it to be accurate.

    TLDR: The amount of misinformation is tremendous and has otherwise seemingly intelligent people saying shit that makes no sense whatsoever. Almost all of it is because they have been misinformed, and if they have the actual facts in front of them, I have no doubt that they'll see things differently
    Were you going to suggest even one remotely practical civilian use for an AR-15?
  39. #25539
    Also, from our friends at Merriam Webster

    Definition of assault rifle
    : any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire
  40. #25540
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,032
    Location
    England
    You were doing ok there banana until you started talking about the laser beam magic bullet.

    Oh an 100 innocent kids are worth more that 22k suicidal adults imo. I'm pro-choice.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  41. #25541
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You were doing ok there banana until you started talking about the laser beam magic bullet.
    There's nothing magic about it. Kennedy was riding in an open top convertible. He was in the back seat. The governor of Texas was directly in front of him.

    Lee Harvey Oswald fired twice. The first shot missed completely. The second went through Kennedy's throat, through the seat of the car, and through the Texas Governor twice; once through the shoulder, and then through his hand.

    Literally none of this is in dispute by anyone, except for the part about Oswald firing twice.

    The "official" account is that he fired three times, the third bullet fatally striking Kennedy in the head. However, there doesn't seem to be any plausible way that's true.

    The third bullet exploded upon impact, and blew Kennedy's head to smithereens. The video shows his wife crawling across the trunk of the car picking up pieces of his brain and skull.

    There's no way, those two bullets came from the same gun.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 02-16-2018 at 04:31 PM.
  42. #25542
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,032
    Location
    England
    Now I'm not gonna get all Moon hoax on you, but cmon, at the very least the whole JFK saga is murky at best and any histrical "facts" we have on the matter should be taken with at least some salt.

    I mean if someone presented 100% indisputable fact that Oswald didn't do it, I'd hardly need to sit down out of shock.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  43. #25543
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,032
    Location
    England
    Although I could talk a bit about the Moon landings. I've seen Room 237. Kubrick directed the hoax.

    But that's all I can be arsed with.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  44. #25544
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,368
    Location
    North Carolina
    The definition of assault rifle is something very specific. One of the requirements is that it allows fully automatic fire. Another is that it allows you to select from different types of fire, eg: switching from fully automatic to semi-automatic. The Merriam-Webster definition is incorrect with the inclusion of "a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire" for each of those reasons.

    This is really hair splitting stuff. His point here is that the gun's designed purpose is to inflict multiple, successive, casualties very quickly.
    So are all semi-automatic rifles.

    I was mistaken in thinking that the AR-10 was used in Vietnam when it was some early AR-15s in limited numbers, so kudos for the "gotcha" on that.

    Overall, you have a poor understanding of the topic as a whole, like the MW definition above that is completely misinformed and frankly dangerous and surprising, and it's going to be completely pointless to try to have this conversation with you, so I'm not going to waste my time on it.

    The only thing you need to know is that "shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed."

    Were you going to suggest even one remotely practical civilian use for an AR-15?
    Since you asked, killing wild hogs.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 02-16-2018 at 06:39 PM.
  45. #25545
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,368
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    There's nothing magic about it. Kennedy was riding in an open top convertible. He was in the back seat. The governor of Texas was directly in front of him.

    Lee Harvey Oswald fired twice. The first shot missed completely. The second went through Kennedy's throat, through the seat of the car, and through the Texas Governor twice; once through the shoulder, and then through his hand.

    Literally none of this is in dispute by anyone, except for the part about Oswald firing twice.

    The "official" account is that he fired three times, the third bullet fatally striking Kennedy in the head. However, there doesn't seem to be any plausible way that's true.

    The third bullet exploded upon impact, and blew Kennedy's head to smithereens. The video shows his wife crawling across the trunk of the car picking up pieces of his brain and skull.

    There's no way, those two bullets came from the same gun.
    Oh wow.
  46. #25546
    The frazzled Secret Service agent theory is by far the most plausible non-official theory. The conspirators (in the cover up) only need to be a handful of people and the motive is really clear: the president is already dead, the agent had no ill intent, and the nation would be better off in having a clear cut villain being ultimately responsible for the death of the president-- there is no clear upside to pinning it on this poor guy who managed to fumble at one of the most pivotal points in history.
  47. #25547
    its actually MORE plausible than the official theory. the official story does a fairly poor job of explaining why the two bullets behaved so differently upon impact.

    also, they had expert shooters/marksman try and recreate the three-shot shooting. they had extremely limited success. its almost unfathomable that someone with oswalds experience could fire three times and hit two bullseyes.
  48. #25548
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Assuming we stop all mass shootings nationwide, we save maybe 100 lives per year. But what if we used the money, instead, to fund suicide prevention. Suicide is responsible for 22,000 gun deaths per year. A 1% reduction in that number means we save twice as many people as we would if we could stop all mass shootings (which we can't).
    This "at what cost" and "opposed to what" sort of thinking is the right kind to use.

    Also important to note is that outlawing firearms enough would likely come with a colossal, gargantuan, astronomical cost. A very good case can be made that people can thank the 2nd Amendment for why they have any freedoms in the first place.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 02-16-2018 at 09:47 PM.
  49. #25549
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Therefore I have no problem outlawing them. This will save lives, but more importantly it will appease the democrats who stupidly believe that gun laws are the answer. The alternative is the Trump plan of calling on the mental health community to address the problem of mass shootings. Like I said, I can't imagine a worse kind of hell.
    As long as you're cool with eventually being owned by the state.

    The ability for firearms to wrongly kill domestically is not new. This tells us that the problem is probably not about firearms. The problem is instead about people becoming ignorant and giving up their protections.

    The right to carry firearms already solves most of the problem of mass shootings. It is when people delude themselves into thinking they can create mass arenas of zero protection by firearm that most mass shootings derive.

    This goes even deeper to people ignorantly relying on monopoly shitty government security instead of competitive fantastic private security.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 02-16-2018 at 09:48 PM.
  50. #25550
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    As long as you're cool with eventually being owned by the state.
    Dramatic much? We had an assault weapons ban for 10 years. I don't recall anyone ever waiting in line for beet rations.

    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    The ability for firearms to wrongly kill domestically is not new. This tells us that the problem is probably not about firearms. The problem is instead about people becoming ignorant and giving up their protections.

    The right to carry firearms already solves most of the problem of mass shootings. It is when people delude themselves into thinking they can create mass arenas of zero protection by firearm that most mass shootings derive.

    This goes even deeper to people ignorantly relying on monopoly shitty government security instead of competitive fantastic private security.
    You mention "the problem" but don't seem to actually address it anywhere in here.

    "The problem" is cultural. Guns have been around for 1000 years, yet no one over 35 ever remembers growing up with lockdown drills in school. You can secure schools, but then someone will just shoot up a mall. Soft targets are everywhere. The problem isn't guns. The problem isn't security. The problem isn't a lack of background checks or psych screens.

    What's different? Kids spend too much time online, and not enough time with their fathers....all the while popping experimental cocktails of psychotropic pills.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 02-16-2018 at 10:29 PM.
  51. #25551
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Dramatic much? We had an assault weapons ban for 10 years. I don't recall anyone ever waiting in line for beet rations.
    I quoted the wrong portion. You said you were okay with outlawing firearms based on the premise of something something offensive something something.

    Defense of the self against attackers and against tyranny doesn't concern with that distinction. Freedom of the self and freedom from government power requires freedom to hold equal power as attackers and as the state. We've already given up a great deal of our freedoms by not acknowledging this. Note how much of what you earn is taken by the government and how much of what you do/don't do is controlled by the government.


    I forgot to mention earlier that I do not favor appeasement of bad actors. I'm not interested in appeasing the Democrats when they do the wrong thing. That just makes more of the wrong thing manifest and incentivizes further engagement in wrong things.



    You mention "the problem" but don't seem to actually address it anywhere in here.
    The problem is addressed by the 2nd Amendment. People and cultures that take their well-being seriously and in their own hands don't get slaughtered in "gun free zones". The mainstream media and the left would like you to believe that the 2nd Amendment exists only for the purpose of helping criminals kill people. They don't acknowledge how that effect is infinitesimal compared to the 2nd Amendment's impact on good citizens protecting themselves and other good citizens.
  52. #25552
  53. #25553
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,032
    Location
    England
    Richard Littlejohn has managed to cause a stir. No surprise there then, what is surprising is that I agree with the idiot.

    For those who don't know who he is (most people), he's a Daily Mail gobshite, paid to express controversial views, he used to work for the Sun saying the same shit to the same morons.

    Anyway, recently, Tom Daley (our best diver, what a hero) has announced he and his husband are expecting their first child, while showing a picture of the scan. Of course, naturally I asked myself who is actually pregnant, since they haven't shared this information.

    Littlejohn has made his views known...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...#ixzz57JbdtGIu

    Here we have two men drawing attention to the fact that 'they' are having a baby.But where's the mum, the possessor of the womb which features in this photograph? She appears to have been written out of the script entirely.

    We are not told her identity, where she lives, or even when the baby is due. She is merely the anonymous incubator.
    My best guess is that she lives in America, since it is still illegal in Britain to pay surrogate mothers other than modest expenses.

    That's why wealthy gay couples, such as Elton John and David Furnish, turn to the States when they want to start a family. Good luck to them. No one is suggesting that homosexual couples can't make excellent parents. But nor is everyone comfortable with the trend towards treating women as mere breeding machines and babies as commodities.
    Cue autistic screams of homophobia, with advertisers pulling their ads from the Daily Mail.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  54. #25554
    wuf, I think you missed my point.

    First, let's address the second amendment. It was enacted for two purposes. The first purpose was so that individuals could exercise their right to defend life and property. This is absolutely not infringed if Ar-15's are banned in the civilian arena.

    The second purpose, as you mentioned, is a defense against tyranny. The founders saw first hand how an armed populace could stand up to oppression and overthrow a government. So from their perspective, that ability should be preserved. From a modern perspective, you see that the government has tanks, bazookas, drones, and dozens of submarines each armed with enough fire power to level 140 cities.

    Your AR-15 isn't protecting you from tyranny. The constitution can be changed, and it's probably time to admit that the 2nd amendment no longer serves its function as a check against oppressive government. That part of it is obsolete. I don't see how this is even debatable.

    Next, you have to admit and accept that we live in a democracy where the will of the people counts. And the will of the people demand action on the issue of mass shootings. Maybe that's an illogical, emotion-based response. But it's the will of the people nonetheless. And the will of the people deserves respect.

    So....no matter how air-tight your argument is 'in theory' or in a textbook, here in the real world, something is going to be done. Whether that action is appropriate, or effective, is probably irrelevant at this point. The populace has demanded government action, and their representatives are obligated to act.

    The two options on the table are:

    1) Ban certain classes of guns that have no proper civilian use whatsoever. And we can be less than terrified of the consequences because we already know what happens when we enact such a ban. We had the exact same thing from 1994 to 2004 and things were pretty much ok.

    2) Address this through mental health. And after listening to all angles of cable news over the last half-week, it seems that the intention here is to enact some kind of screening process to keep guns out of the hands of unstable people. It also includes some kind of reporting function that allows law enforcement vast investigative powers whenever they receive a "tip". In other words, psychologists are going to be the gatekeepers of people's rights.

    I'll take option 1. No question. I don't really like either, but c'mon. It's gonna be one of those two things. It should be pretty obvious which one does a better job of insulating us against tyranny.

    Everybody says the same thing about these perpetrators. "He was a little off". "He was strange". "He kept to himself". Every school in America has a dozen kids like this. Only one in a million of them will become school shooters. But we're heading toward a situation where their classmates can report them just for "being weird", and suddenly their rights are denied.

    It's unfathomable to me that we would live in a world where a psychologist can question a person to determine their fitness for owning a firearm. But that's where we are heading. The DSM-5 can diagnose 70% of the world with some kind of mental disorder. And now we want its agents to question people, without a lawyer.

    Just ban the Ar-15 and move on.
  55. #25555
    Banana: 1
    Ideologues: 0
  56. #25556
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    Ideologues
    Who would this be?
  57. #25557
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    wuf, I think you missed my point.

    First, let's address the second amendment. It was enacted for two purposes. The first purpose was so that individuals could exercise their right to defend life and property. This is absolutely not infringed if Ar-15's are banned in the civilian arena.
    Add to the bolded "with the same means that attackers may hold" and it would be correct.

    The second purpose, as you mentioned, is a defense against tyranny. The founders saw first hand how an armed populace could stand up to oppression and overthrow a government. So from their perspective, that ability should be preserved. From a modern perspective, you see that the government has tanks, bazookas, drones, and dozens of submarines each armed with enough fire power to level 140 cities.
    You are correct that the contemporary use of state run military and police force as a replacement for private militias is a deviation from the spirit of the 2nd Amendment.

    The idea that because one has more/better firepower, lesser kinds of firepower aren't a deterrent is not sophisticated. It's probably a bad idea to imagine a silly scenario where a tyrannical domestic government uses tanks to level cities. The type of tyrannical police action taken would likely be much more along the lines of what citizens holding AR-15s would strongly deter.

    Next, you have to admit and accept that we live in a democracy where the will of the people counts.
    It's a constitutional republic. The system of law is designed to protect the individual from the mob. Our liberties and prosperity derive from this, not from majority rule.
  58. #25558
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Who would this be?
    you know damn well.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post

    It's a constitutional republic. The system of law is designed to protect the individual from the mob. Our liberties and prosperity derive from this, not from majority rule.
    Our liberties come from many things, both explicitly written and implied through norms and traditions. In this particular case the liberties gained are from the mob being kept in check, not subverted. This is why we have both the Senate and a representative house. The liberties gained from the legislative branch are not due to one or the other, but the balance of the two.

    Near every utterance you make with regards to how to better shape society inadvertently or intentionally ignores the value of balance-- a value the founders held above most others in seeking to form a lasting and virtuous society.
  59. #25559
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    you know damn well.
    I was giving you the opportunity to rethink your silly claim.

    Near every utterance you make with regards to how to better shape society inadvertently or intentionally ignores the value of balance-- a value the founders held above most others in seeking to form a lasting and virtuous society.
    It sounds like you're reading something other than what I write.
  60. #25560
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Add to the bolded "with the same means that attackers may hold" and it would be correct.
    Where is that written?

    You are correct that the contemporary use of state run military and police force as a replacement for private militias is a deviation from the spirit of the 2nd Amendment.
    So you concede that Pandora's box is open. So can we please take this conversation out of a classroom and into reality?

    The idea that because one has more/better firepower, lesser kinds of firepower aren't a deterrent is not sophisticated.
    Sometimes real life isn't as complex as you think it is.

    It's probably a bad idea to imagine a silly scenario where a tyrannical domestic government uses tanks to level cities.
    Silly?? This is Texas, 1993.


    The type of tyrannical police action taken would likely be much more along the lines of what citizens holding AR-15s would strongly deter
    .
    Look again. Does this look like a scene where an AR-15 would be useful??


    It's a constitutional republic. The system of law is designed to protect the individual from the mob. Our liberties and prosperity derive from this, not from majority rule.
    Again, your textbook arguments aren't gonna hold up in the real world. People are screaming at their elected officials and demanding action. What do you think will happen if their response is "sorry voters, this isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic"
  61. #25561
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    ...
    Did you watch the Peterson/Newman video? I recommend it.
  62. #25562
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I was giving you the opportunity to rethink your silly claim.



    It sounds like you're reading something other than what I write.
    Meh, sometimes its fun volleying with you, sometimes it's just easier and more satisfying to call your hand waving for what it is.

    I honestly am impressed by how well you've taken to the Adams stuff. But it's the sort of impressed that one becomes when being let in on an elaborate large scale scheme to fleece the elderly out of their social security benefits.

    Cheers.
  63. #25563
    Acknowledging that people (including myself) come to believe things then rationalize them, as opposed to believing things based on rationality, changes these sorts of interactions.
  64. #25564
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    I honestly am impressed by how well you've taken to the Adams stuff. But it's the sort of impressed that one becomes when being let in on an elaborate large scale scheme to fleece the elderly out of their social security benefits.
    So you want to know how you can get in on it? On the bottom floor why of course.
    Opportunities knock
    was really just the pizza man
  65. #25565
    He's already in the game. Doesn't want the competition.
  66. #25566
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,032
    Location
    England
    The Waco Siege is not an example of a tyrannical government using tanks to oppress the population.

    It's an example of a powerful government attempting to crush a cult that was collecting an arsenal of illegal weapons.

    And it didn't even work, see Oklahoma.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  67. #25567
    Why are none of you lot on discord :/
    Opportunities knock
    was really just the pizza man
  68. #25568
    i hopped on. looks empty
  69. #25569
    Because you just need to leave it on in the background. I'm on now and will be for the next hour or two. Just drop a message in chat if anyone comes on and I'll respond.
    Opportunities knock
    was really just the pizza man
  70. #25570
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7,404
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    I stumbled across 8 out of 10 cats does countdown recently.

    I left a playlist on in the background over the weekend and occasionally played the anagram and numbers games.

    It's so different to American TV. They openly swear. They rather viciously mock each other, and throw jokes around that would get them lambasted over here.
    E.g. openly making gay jokes to the gay guy, or openly making Nazi jokes to the German guy.
    That kind of thing would have half the USA hollering bigot and racism.

    Jimmy Carr is kind of a dick to everyone else, but when they play back at him, he is a good sport, so ... meh. It reminds me of my closest friends giving each other a bit of shit in good fun.
    Except that they make it pretty clear that they're not friends with him, which rubs me a bit the wrong way, but not grumbling about it, just noting.

    Also: I know it's a comedy show and they're doing caricatures, so grain of salt, but damn... their impressions of Americans is amusing.
    E.g. One guy puts on a cowboy hat and starts talking in a mock Texas accent, and simply refers to himself as "the kid" and speaks about himself in the 3rd person making veiled demands for the rest of the episode. "The kid wants a vowel..."

    I'm not taking it as anything aside from amusing.

    It's interesting that whenever a Brit does an impression of an American accent, they always go to the southwestern cowboy, "Howdy, Pardner" style.
    I wonder if there's a similar thing in return. Like, do Americans faking a British accent tend to pick a dialect or accent from, say, London?
  71. #25571
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I wonder if there's a similar thing in return. Like, do Americans faking a British accent tend to pick a dialect or accent from, say, London?
    For sure.

    If you stopped 10 people on the street and asked them to do a British impression, I'm sure the term "gov'nah" would come up alot.

    If you asked people to do an Australian accent, I'll bet more than half would do a Crocodile Dundee impression and explain to you which things are, and are not, a knife.

    Personally, I picture Irish people going around saying "top o' the mornin' to ya" and someone responding "and the rest of the day to you". But I'll bet that happens almost never in real life.
  72. #25572
    OngBonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    17,032
    Location
    England
    Jimmy Carr is probably the most British comedian out there. He has it all... self loathing faggot with a ridiculous laugh, everyone hates him but really everyone loves him, or is it the other way around? Yes he's a good sport, he can give it and he can take it, it's exactly the kind of banter that gets dished out in pubs and workplaces etc.

    He once managed to offend a fair few people... after the Iraq war, he made a joke about it, something like "Say what you want about our soliders, but we'll have a fucking great team in the Paralympics." Of course, those who were offended generally did not include crippled war vets, who found it funny and pointed out they would be proud to represent us at the paralympics. He's offending the right people, so good for him.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  73. #25573
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    7,404
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    @banana: IDK about Dundee. While you made me smile, it's a pretty old movie by now.
    The rest sounds pretty accurate.
    Scottish is gonna be Shrek like > 90%, I think.

    @ong: I'm not surprised that's how Jimmy is received. The whole love/hate thing is accurate enough for my reaction to his style of comedy.
  74. #25574
    Funny how stereotyping accents is totally ok for white cultures.

    I'd get beat up if I did a black voice (you know what I'm talking about), a latin voice (think Cheech Marin), or an asian voice (this one is doubly racist because alot of people squint when they do it)
  75. #25575
    Your fault for being a white fucking male.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •